Uhh Obama is almost the opposite of a conservative. Romney is no conservative either, only conservative that ran was Gary Johnson and Ron Paul

Gary Johnson is still running, too bad we won't see Ron Paul as a third party candidate I feel like he wouldn't have won but the message would have gotten even more publicity.

Why obama is a conservative? I say this relatively from the point of view of an Australian where USA's centre is far right of ours. Its the same with European nations. What is centre in Europe is left in USA.

Lets look at the current US political situation to deem what is liberal and what is conservative. Liberal when dealing with social issues is deemed progressive.

AKA. in 1998, Mitt Romney was a progressive Republican who introduced state mandated healthcare and ran on a pro-homosexual platform as well which allowed him to secure the governor position in a relatively democratic state.

Obama is conservative because of his increased war effort (higher number of drone strikes, increased willingness to kill enemy combatants (more authorizations), increasing willingness to jump at other countries to assert American power). His complete lack of support for the legalisation of drugs (highest level of federal level crack downs on marijuana dispensaries).

He supports universal healthcare (although obamacare isnt this, just that congress cant possibly allow for this to pass through). He supports gays (havent seen anything from him regarding gay marriage though, could just be lip service). But relatively speaking, he is right of centre relative to the rest of the western world. Also note that in terms of government control, he has been quite neutral. See: Abortion, firearms. Both big players in the US political arena, Obama doesnt go near it so as to not alienate anyone

What makes him such a Liberal? What makes him a socialist? His stimulus package was mostly tax breaks. Just because he hasnt gone balls to the wall crazy with redistributing wealth to the top, doesnt mean he is suddenly a socialist. He bailed out the automobile industry and lets be honest, that was a good move. The subsidies that corporations get which can be construed as state capitalism aka forms of socialism have been around for years before obama. Generations before him.

Ron Paul isnt a conservative. He is a libertarian who champions states rights. If the states pass bills supporting homosexual marriage, allowing for universal healthcare (such as masechuseutsuudfhusdh[I dont live in USA, doesnt matter if i cant spell it] with Romney, he wont give a fudge.) He will make federal government smaller, but not necessarily smaller government as the State government will have to up its game. Conservatives often work together and willing to put huge funding into blocking gay marriage bills at the state level. Ron Paul wouldnt. Therefore Ron Paul is not your poster boy for conservatives. Gary Johnson is the same deal. A libertarian. Conservatives in the US have a cognitive dissonance wherein they want smaller government, but at the same time, they want to uphold conservative ideals with government law. They want to outlaw or at least make difficult, gay marriage, drugs, abortion, etc. They want to uphold the America that was in the 1960s. The dying dream of a baby boomer generation trying to hold onto their past by controlling the rights of those in the present. That isnt smaller government, the passing of the above into legality is seen predominately as liberal when in fact it is libertarian.

While Conservatism is the idea of holding traditional values , hence why it use to be called Traditionalism.

If America's founding fathers preached small government, wanting to avoid any mandate of any kind as it was and still is unconstitutional, the very core of who Obama and Mitt Romney are scream opposite of Libertarianism and Conservatism.

One day you're going to wake up and realize that just because someone pretends to be part of a particular classification doesn't make them that classification.

If Conservatism is the idea of preserving traditional values that we have in this nation, or any nation for that matter, that means one can be a Libertarianism without being Conservative, but NOT conservative without being somewhat libertarianism.

Obama a conservative? HA!

Gee lets think of a few things to argue that he's not conservative, you know, beside pretending he was a bush-hater, who wanted nothing to do with bush's policies, yet reinforced every bush policy the moment he took office.

Extended the unconstitutional Patriot act

Continued bush's violation of UN law, against preemptive war . (Meaning invading a sovereign nation)

Gave himself more power than any holding office in America besides the federal reserve.

Increased the national debt by $2 Trillion.

Bailed out businesses that turned out to not need it (Also happened to be some of the businesses that funded his campaign

Lied about withdraw of troops from Iraq, 3 times. (Media reported that they were home almost every 6 months in a 18 month period) and we still have presence in Iraq, as well as many of the surrounding areas. We occupy more than 3/4 of the worlds countries with military.

He won the nobel peace prize by talking to russia about disarming nukes (btw the weakest reasoning for giving anyone a nobel prize every, NOT EVEN GHANDI got one. It normally takes 5-25 years after you've done something to get it.) Then turns around and pledged 350 Billion USD to our own nuclear weapons programs.

Declares unofficially, war without the approval of congress in lybia, and so many more countries not just in the middle east, calling them "conflict zones" not countries, or wars zones.

Started a drone war, in yemen

Authorized Covert Support and funding of Syrian rebels.

Unprovoked drone, and cyberwarfare against Iran.

Plans to issues a string of government mandates (in his own words) "For the greater good" (Ie: The government does not have the constitutional authority to make mandates on this scale.)

Creates a United States Citizen "Kill list"

AND LETS NOT FORGET, NDAA: The right to detain any American Citizen with no charge, jury, trial, FOREVER, effectively suspending habeas corpus.

Oh and little flipflopping Mitt Romney? He isnt the same person he'll be tomorrow as he is today? The guy ran in 2008, under and entirley different mindset. He is basically Obama's twin in denial. He changes his stance every 4 years or so. Infact he was nicknamed "Flipper" for his HORRIBLE and quite noticeable, changing of opinion.

Bottom line is, these guys are crooks, and it doesn't matter who wins. It wont change a damn thing.

"True Change can only occur when we learn our lesson, and correct our mistake, not continue it over and over again."

oh and ps:

Auto industries have had loss of profits much greater than what they had when they needed to be bailed out. Infact it is now known today, that many of the companies we bailed out did not even need it. They were prefectly fine, even though they weren't making all time highs like they use to be doing. Infact one company reportedly made over $2million every hour for 60 days straight, with no ups or downs.

When this happens, any economist who isn't bought out will tell you, thats a rigged market.

The auto industry never 'needed' a bailout.

Most auto industries as well as most oil companies, are owned by the same family, broken up back in the past to avoid a monopoly. Its a fairly simple concept...you take a company, break it up into several branches, rename each of them, and put someone else in charge of them.

Your idea that we need to bail out companies in a "so called' freemarket system anyway is ludicrous.

Next you'll be telling me the reason gas prices are high is because of the "financial burden" it takes oil companies to get oil...even though they're making RECORD BREAKING all time highs.

If it is so unconstitutional, the supreme court wouldnt allow it. Same with the healthcare mandate, deemed constitutional

Continued bush's violation of UN law, against preemptive war . (Meaning invading a sovereign nation)

Yep.

Gave himself more power than any holding office in America besides the federal reserve.

Example? Reasoning? Pretty vague here without specifics.

Increased the national debt by $2 Trillion.

Are you sure its a base level increase? Debt was skyrocketting under Bush's final years and Obama had to take measures during GFC, austerity alone doesnt work. Go ask Canada if you dont believe me. Contentious, but I may have to hand this to you on grounds of technicality

Bailed out businesses that turned out to not need it (Also happened to be some of the businesses that funded his campaign

Again, specifics.

Lied about withdraw of troops from Iraq, 3 times. (Media reported that they were home almost every 6 months in a 18 month period) and we still have presence in Iraq, as well as many of the surrounding areas. We occupy more than 3/4 of the worlds countries with military.

But the vast majority of troops have been withdrawn. This was from a plan laid out by Bush at the start of the invasion leaving a maximal stay duration.

He won the nobel peace prize by talking to russia about disarming nukes (btw the weakest reasoning for giving anyone a nobel prize every, NOT EVEN GHANDI got one. It normally takes 5-25 years after you've done something to get it.) Then turns around and pledged 350 Billion USD to our own nuclear weapons programs.

Not really in Obama's power when deciding who gets nobel prizes you know. Regarding the nukes, its been ignored for the past 20 years and every year, the cost of maintenance increases to hold and store them as they degrade with age. Projected to last 10 years for the upgrade aka ~35 billion a year. The maintenance cost for the current nuclear arsenal is 60 billion a year and growing (grew by 5 billion from 2010 to 2011 from 55.6 bil to 61.3 bil). This 60 billion a year covers storage, security as well as the dismantling and disposal of nukes in the disarmament thingy. Horrible waste, but they are nuclear warheads

Declares unofficially, war without the approval of congress in lybia, and so many more countries not just in the middle east, calling them "conflict zones" not countries, or wars zones.

Source? I dont remember seeing any troops or anything, I remember reading about CIA operatives helping the right rebels to succeed but no actual war or deploying of ground troops beyond advisors.

Started a drone war, in yemen

Yep, like I said, Obama likes his drones and warfare.

Authorized Covert Support and funding of Syrian rebels.

Yep, pretty bad at covert since we all know about it.

Unprovoked drone, and cyberwarfare against Iran.

Arguably is more of a proxy cyber war using Israel. I dont remember drone strikes in Iran though.

Plans to issues a string of government mandates (in his own words) "For the greater good" (Ie: The government does not have the constitutional authority to make mandates on this scale.)

Specifics or are you just using conjecture and hyperbole?

Creates a United States Citizen "Kill list"

Yep. Not a huge amount different from Bush, the Patriot act alone allowed you to be spirited away to locations unknown.

AND LETS NOT FORGET, NDAA: The right to detain any American Citizen with no charge, jury, trial, FOREVER, effectively suspending habeas corpus.

If that ever does happen, welcome to the biggest media frenzy of your life.

You also mention something regarding the automobile industry but fail to provide examples of companies not threatened and still received bail outs

In short, you dont exactly point to how Obama isnt a conservative, you bring up negative things but that whole pro war business isnt the typical liberal hippy stuff. Also typically, increasing debt is a right wing trend. Decreasing debt is a left wing trend. You also have weird things like that healthcare mandate. Its expected to cut debt considerably as it rolls in and isnt increasing debt for the first 10 years. Yet it is very easily a more regulated system which forces insurance companies to comply with more regulations and for all individuals to basically be part of it.

You should have brought up his public support for gay rights, that isnt part of any traditional values.

First off why are you making the assumption that if someone is not conservative that they're automatically liberal? The word you're looking for is fascist, and I'll explain that in a moment.

But lets start with what you've said:

Quote:

If it is so unconstitutional, the supreme court wouldn't allow it. Same with the healthcare mandate, deemed constitutional

In a perfect world yes, but in recent years, even things that have been ruled unconstitutional still exist. Heck even our income tax which was originally ruled as unconstitutional made its way shakily into practice. What you don't understand that there is no difference in what we do and what we pretend we aren't doing. The Patriot Act is in direct violation of many many civil liberties.

It was Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Quote:

Example? Reasoning? Pretty vague here without specifics.

The founding fathers set up the nations government to be a system of checks and balances inorder to prevent one branch of government from getting stronger than the rest. Obama has committed aggressive invasions of other soverign nations, or as he would call them "conflict zones" (in order to dehumanize them). This is a direct violation of our system of government. As well with the passing of NDAA, and many other "so called" helpful laws, he has expanded the power of the executive branch making it more powerful than the other two branches. Plus I think this entire list, is just a vague start on the examples.

Quote:

But the vast majority of troops have been withdrawn. This was from a plan laid out by Bush at the start of the invasion leaving a maximal stay duration.

???????????

Obama brought home 20,000 troops, sent 50,000, brought home 5,000 sent 30,000 and continued this process. And the forces we currently have there are more than we had during the first year in Iraq, which was essentially the invasion. The ONLY DIFFERENCE, is now we're not calling it an occupational force....merely a "peace keeping' or "security" force.

And the very idea that you said bush planned to withdraw from the start is hilarious....it was bush's administration who can be quoted for this wonderful term " We maybe in Iraq for 50 years."

Lets face it, the Iraq War occurred because the CIA lost control over its puppet Saddam, who refused to give his countries resources to America, as well as refused to cooperate militaristic-ally with American interests. He was no innocent man however, his biggest mistake was trusting us.

On top of this, the troops didn't come home...they were rotated - and shuffled to other nations that we're currently invading.

Quote:

Are you sure its a base level increase? Debt was skyrocketting under Bush's final years and Obama had to take measures during GFC, austerity alone doesnt work. Go ask Canada if you dont believe me. Contentious, but I may have to hand this to you on grounds of technicality

Besides the bailouts, Obama unofficially declared war in several regions thus driving up costs. You apparently are not taking into consideration that war is expensive. Sure its extremely profitable to the federal reserve, and manufactures, and what not - but war takes its toll on nations, and its people. Iraq ALONE was about 720 Million USD a day. Considering that Obama supported, and condoned many other hostile actions that the media refuses to call invading sovereign nations "War" - yeah....he's had a direct hand in it. Not to mention that instead of RESOLVING the problem, he's supported raising the debt ceiling (kinda like raising the limit on your kids credit card) and allowing the federal reserve to buy up assests, and then loan money back to the government which the tax payer will have to pay off indefinitely. AND I DO MEAN INDEFINITELY.

Oh and my mistake, he raised it by 4 Trillion, not 2 Trillion.

Quote:

Again, specifics.

What you need to realize is that almost ALL of these wallstreet companies, and almost ALL of the automotive/oil industries, are owned by the same families. Its not just one company here and there. This is literally a monopoly.

Quote:

Source? I dont remember seeing any troops or anything, I remember reading about CIA operatives helping the right rebels to succeed but no actual war or deploying of ground troops beyond advisors.

CSPAN is a channel that almost no American watches, that often has congressman arguing back and forth about key issues. It was a public service that was created for the purpose of keeping the public informed. This has been a key issue that they have been discussing, then suddenly it was swept under the rug.

Quote:

Yep, pretty bad at covert since we all know about it.

It was a CIA cable leak that came out, the guy responsible is on trial for it. Plus, its not like its that surprising. Remember World War II, when we funded the Russians before they were against Germany? Or how we overthrew the elected official in Iran in 1953, to install a dictator just to get oil ? Or the coop we staged in Argentina, the government's drug trafficking scandal in Columbia....I mean really...are we suppose to be that surprised anymore?

Quote:

Arguably is more of a proxy cyber war using Israel. I dont remember drone strikes in Iran though.

While American Officials are currently insisting they are only doing recon, Iran is insisting that America is becoming aggressively hostile toward them. But to me....it doesnt matter which one is telling the truth...either way we're violating their airspace.

Quote:

Specifics or are you just using conjecture and hyperbole?

In a recent speech Obama gave, he stated that he had plenty of more "change" to bring about, but wouldn't clarify what he exactly meant. During a followup interview he had stated that we would see other programs go under the same changes like healthcare reform. When asked if he meant, "mandates" he hesitated and then said "yes, and no", but then came up with this long winded excuse about how it wouldnt be a mandate. But what Mr. Obama fails to realize is that just because you call it something else, doesn't make it true. I'm pretty sure he'd name them "suggestions" even if a gun was placed to our head during the process.

Quote:

If that ever does happen, welcome to the biggest media frenzy of your life

.

What the heck are you talking about? IT HAS HAPPENED, IT IS HAPPENING. The media basically ignored it, but most newspapers wrote, and as an example the "New York Times" wrote an article saying "Obama would be forever known as the president who suspended habeas Corpus (Although I might be wrong, on that it could've been the "Washington post". They both did articles on the issue.)

Quote:

You also have weird things like that healthcare mandate. Its expected to cut debt considerably as it rolls in and isnt increasing debt for the first 10 years. Yet it is very easily a more regulated system which forces insurance companies to comply with more regulations and for all individuals to basically be part of it.

YES JUST what we needed in this country....a "Living" Tax....but without being called a tax.

Now as a final reply, to your last bit where you accuse me of not pointing out how Obama is not a conservative; I find that quiet hilarious because you seem to misunderstand what a conservative is. As I pointed out before, it is the idea of tradition. (Hence why it use to be called Traditionalism")

And if we can agree that our founding fathers in America preached small government, keeping power with the states, and non-interventionist foreign policy, as well as a check and balance system which Obama has walked all over.... then we can easily say, Obama is far from up holding such traditions.

Modern Conservatism is made up of 3 pillars.

#1Liberty Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties).

#2 OrderConservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights.

#3 LawThe belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty.

Now when speaking out being a Libertarian, it is strictly about the ideas of promoting Liberty, protecting civil rights, and just all around the very aspects of being Human.

You can be a Libertarian without being Conservative.

YOU CANNOT be a Conservative without being Libertarian to some degree.

Therefore, Obama is neither, and anyone suggesting so, Honestly doesn't know the first thing about the meaning of the word, nor American History.

What you have Obama, and Mitt Romney doing.. (and its not a new practice) is scratching the back of the defense contractors, and industries that funded their campaigns. When business becomes in bed with government, you have fascism. If you disagree that America is becoming Fascist, than I strongly urge you to study the creation of the monopoly system in America, as well as the "federal" reserve.

I'm writing a book about the founding of America, and it starts of with a particular pair of fellows. "George Washington," and "Robert Morris." The book is entitled " What is Freedom?"

[color=#80BFFF]In a perfect world yes, but in recent years, even things that have been ruled unconstitutional still exist. Heck even our income tax which was originally ruled as unconstitutional made its way shakily into practice. What you don't understand that there is no difference in what we do and what we pretend we aren't doing. The Patriot Act is in direct violation of many many civil liberties.

Supreme court has not ruled the income tax to be unconstitutional. Im going to trust the justice system and consitution professionals over your word, sorry. The patiot act is a direct violation of many civil liberties, so too is law enforcement. So too is law itself. Japanese internment camps? Draft for war? Is that all youve got? Its unconstitutional because civil liberties are threatened?

It was Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Draft for war, internment camps. USA has a history of living off fear. McCarthy made an entire political campaign out of it and managed to shape the nation off it for the entire future. Fox News spear heads the use of fear. My diagnosis? Based on that quote, USA deserves neither liberty nor safety.

The founding fathers set up the nations government to be a system of checks and balances inorder to prevent one branch of government from getting stronger than the rest. Obama has committed aggressive invasions of other soverign nations, or as he would call them "conflict zones" (in order to dehumanize them). This is a direct violation of our system of government. As well with the passing of NDAA, and many other "so called" helpful laws, he has expanded the power of the executive branch making it more powerful than the other two branches. Plus I think this entire list, is just a vague start on the examples.

Quote:

Obama has committed aggressive invasions of other soverign nations

I asked for specifics, usually mentioning a country or two would be helpful. It would also help me determine what exactly you mean by aggressive invasion. NDAA doesnt necessarily relate to executive branch jurisdiction. You cant label the list as a source when im clearly making a lot of it contentious to say the least.

Obama brought home 20,000 troops, sent 50,000, brought home 5,000 sent 30,000 and continued this process. And the forces we currently have there are more than we had during the first year in Iraq, which was essentially the invasion. The ONLY DIFFERENCE, is now we're not calling it an occupational force....merely a "peace keeping' or "security" force.

And the very idea that you said bush planned to withdraw from the start is hilarious....it was bush's administration who can be quoted for this wonderful term " We maybe in Iraq for 50 years."

Lets face it, the Iraq War occurred because the CIA lost control over its puppet Saddam, who refused to give his countries resources to America, as well as refused to cooperate militaristic-ally with American interests. He was no innocent man however, his biggest mistake was trusting us.

On top of this, the troops didn't come home...they were rotated - and shuffled to other nations that we're currently invading.

Oops on your behalf.All US Forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush. Completed 18th december. Troops withdrawn from Iraq.

Afghanistan is ongoing, I believe they received a bump, but it wasnt particularly huge.

Quote:

Are you sure its a base level increase? Debt was skyrocketting under Bush's final years and Obama had to take measures during GFC, austerity alone doesnt work. Go ask Canada if you dont believe me. Contentious, but I may have to hand this to you on grounds of technicality

Besides the bailouts, Obama unofficially declared war in several regions thus driving up costs. You apparently are not taking into consideration that war is expensive. Sure its extremely profitable to the federal reserve, and manufactures, and what not - but war takes its toll on nations, and its people. Iraq ALONE was about 720 Million USD a day. Considering that Obama supported, and condoned many other hostile actions that the media refuses to call invading sovereign nations "War" - yeah....he's had a direct hand in it. Not to mention that instead of RESOLVING the problem, he's supported raising the debt ceiling (kinda like raising the limit on your kids credit card) and allowing the federal reserve to buy up assests, and then loan money back to the government which the tax payer will have to pay off indefinitely. AND I DO MEAN INDEFINITELY.

Oh and my mistake, he raised it by 4 Trillion, not 2 Trillion.

Good thing he pulled out of Iraq almost a year ago, good to see you keeping up with the news. Again, where did he declare war exactly? He dropped a couple advisors in Libya and Syria has CIA operatives, likely good long term moves since they watch where the weapons go and try to make sure that the Al Qaeda forces and Islamic militants dont get the power.

You also fail to understand what the debt ceiling really is. Until you do I dont feel you should raise this point again unless you want to look stupid. Until you note that it is routine to increase it with the increasing size of USA and inflation. Its to do with credit in the grander scope of the economy. Reagan for example raised it 18 times, Bush, 7 times. To endanger the credit rating of USA like the Republicans did last time for cheap political points with those unwilling or too dim witted to know how it works is to herald disaster. I mean really sink USA into a recession as a cut into credit cuts spending and growth.

Quote:

Again, specifics.

What you need to realize is that almost ALL of these wallstreet companies, and almost ALL of the automotive/oil industries, are owned by the same families. Its not just one company here and there. This is literally a monopoly.

Quote:

Again, specifics. If they are all on board, just list 2 of them and their relations

Quote:

Source? I dont remember seeing any troops or anything, I remember reading about CIA operatives helping the right rebels to succeed but no actual war or deploying of ground troops beyond advisors.

CSPAN is a channel that almost no American watches, that often has congressman arguing back and forth about key issues. It was a public service that was created for the purpose of keeping the public informed. This has been a key issue that they have been discussing, then suddenly it was swept under the rug.

Im referring to this

Quote:

Declares unofficially, war without the approval of congress in lybia, and so many more countries not just in the middle east, calling them "conflict zones" not countries, or wars zones.

I am looking for source regarding "declaration of war" in "many more countries not just in the middle east" even if they are just called conflict zones. I want to see just how much US involvement is happening. Referring to vague TV show a while ago involving 'congressman' is not that helpful to me. Even a name or two and I can google it and do the brunt work for you.

While American Officials are currently insisting they are only doing recon, Iran is insisting that America is becoming aggressively hostile toward them. But to me....it doesnt matter which one is telling the truth...either way we're violating their airspace.

Good thing Iran hasnt shown interest in destroying Israel then. Not exactly drone warfare is is it? "drone and cyber warfare"Even now, its clear they are only doing recon until missiles get a launching.

Quote:

Specifics or are you just using conjecture and hyperbole?

In a recent speech Obama gave, he stated that he had plenty of more "change" to bring about, but wouldn't clarify what he exactly meant. During a followup interview he had stated that we would see other programs go under the same changes like healthcare reform. When asked if he meant, "mandates" he hesitated and then said "yes, and no", but then came up with this long winded excuse about how it wouldnt be a mandate. But what Mr. Obama fails to realize is that just because you call it something else, doesn't make it true. I'm pretty sure he'd name them "suggestions" even if a gun was placed to our head during the process.

So let me get this straight. From a single vague interview where obama explains why they are not mandates for future possible plans but are still reform you get: Obama is going to issue a string of government mandates.

Boom instantly, you go for the fear mongering involving guns placed against heads.... yeah. Conjecture and hyperbole it is.

Quote:

If that ever does happen, welcome to the biggest media frenzy of your life

.

What the heck are you talking about? IT HAS HAPPENED, IT IS HAPPENING. The media basically ignored it, but most newspapers wrote, and as an example the "New York Times" wrote an article saying "Obama would be forever known as the president who suspended habeas Corpus (Although I might be wrong, on that it could've been the "Washington post". They both did articles on the issue.)

The actual bill has a clause that exempts US citizens but at the same time, its language is poor and doesnt really exempt them aka. you can easily argue that it doesnt, even if you are not a lawyer. If you ever see a US citizen actually subject to this, then you will see media circus, media frenzy, judicial processes will break down into blood and anger. Until it is actually applied to a US citizen, one assumes it continues its original role of over reacting to terrorism and making sure that terror suspects dont get rights.

YES JUST what we needed in this country....a "Living" Tax....but without being called a tax. Well it does drop the actual cost of healthcare down and streamlines the insurance policies. There are success stories already as the first phase is already rolled out (under 26 can share healthcare plan with their parents). Anecdotal evidence I have personally come across: 22yo female working part time, full time student. Used her parents insurance for a check up, found early stage skin cancer. Likely would not have had a check up for ages without her doctor's visit getting subsidized due to low funds.

Also, it reduces debt while improving healthcare. The actual mandate cost is relatively low for those who decide not to get insurance. Even without all of the parts of reform, many parts of it, I am sure even you will agree with.

And if we can agree that our founding fathers in America preached small government, keeping power with the states, and non-interventionist foreign policy, as well as a check and balance system which Obama has walked all over.... then we can easily say, Obama is far from up holding such traditions.

Modern Conservatism is made up of 3 pillars.

#1Liberty Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties).

Obama is making health a right, not a privilege that only the rich can afford. At the same time, he is leaving women's reproductive rights alone, something the current GOP is failing at. Coupled with support for gay marriage which liberty should allow since it doesnt hurt anyone and its only fault is being non traditional.

Check the GOP and democrat platforms, the NDAA would have been signed in regardless the party. (why did you pick green D: I was using that, changed to maroon)

#2 OrderConservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights.

Slavery was a good thing in the past, allowed the south to be relatively prosperous bar black people since white owners didnt have to pay wages. Traditional values often conflict with #1. Life, liberty, freedom. See: When women were allowed to vote. Whether it was progressives or traditionalists who were arguing for and against. That is all.

#3 LawThe belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty.

I often refer to the supreme court to see if things are constitutional or not. The things you say arent are deemed to be so by the officials.

Now when speaking out being a Libertarian, it is strictly about the ideas of promoting Liberty, protecting civil rights, and just all around the very aspects of being Human.

You can be a Libertarian without being Conservative.

YOU CANNOT be a Conservative without being Libertarian to some degree.

Therefore, Obama is neither, and anyone suggesting so, Honestly doesn't know the first thing about the meaning of the word, nor American History.

I gave 3, count them 3 clear examples of Obama supporting life (healthcare), liberty (general support of gays) and freedom of restrictive something something (women's reproductive rights should havent old male politicians imposing laws over). I pointed out several examples as well before where he didnt meet the criteria (gary supports marijuana rights, barack has resulted in more federal crackdowns on dispensaries)

What you have Obama, and Mitt Romney doing.. (and its not a new practice) is scratching the back of the defense contractors, and industries that funded their campaigns. When business becomes in bed with government, you have fascism. If you disagree that America is becoming Fascist, than I strongly urge you to study the creation of the monopoly system in America, as well as the "federal" reserve.

I'm writing a book about the founding of America, and it starts of with a particular pair of fellows. "George Washington," and "Robert Morris." The book is entitled " What is Freedom?"

Gary Johnson plans to completely cut medicare and medicaid, subsidies to the elderly for drugs. I foresee hundreds of thousands of increased elderly deaths, the people who built USA and paid for it through taxes get shafted. Deaths amongst the poor, a broken arm resulting in bankruptcy amongst the poor. Government subsidized student loans get shot the knee cap then bullet through the brain.

In short, if you lack wealth, you are in trouble if you are unlucky. A single hospital visit will result in bankruptcy more or less.

Well I wrote a really long reply, and as a switched screens i acciedently exited this window out -.-

Anyways- instead of rewriting it heres somethings for you to look up.

"2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia.[15] This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.[citation needed]2011 - Uganda. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Uganda."

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed. It has been deemed unconstitutional by the ladder half yet has met fierce reinforcement by warmongers in government thus still keeping it alive. It allows the president to commit military actions of his own, however IT DID REQUIRE THAT the president give a 48 hour notice to congress (Normally congress decides war actions )

All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.

When asked if it was unconstitutional this is what Obama said

""I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not — I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here. ... So I don't even have to get to the constitutional question. There may be a time in which there was a serious question as to whether or not the War Powers Resolution Act was constitutional — I don't have to get to the question. ... I'm just saying I don't have to reach it. That's — that's a good legal answer."

Heh....Obama violated the Constitution with his actions in Libya, and it most certainly is not the only example, if we include the 'dream act incident' and NDAA.

Plus a side note I think that with all the things that he, and the previous office holders have done, for you to start getting condescending

Quote:

Boom instantly, you go for the fear mongering involving guns placed against heads.... yeah. Conjecture and hyperbole it is.

Just because I haven't listed EVERYTHING the man has done.

The reality of the situation is, I'm not just making random shots in the dark like yourself my friend, I'm a Political Science student, who knows a thing or two about law, and the constitution that this nation's leadership has been wiping between their cheeks for over 30-40 years, Obama being no exception.

Plus if the argument is that Obama is conservative....how "traditional" is "suspending habeas Corpus??"

I know you posted an abridged version, still gonna include my points not addressed if they are relevant.

Patriot act, although not nice, is constitutional. - not tackled.

Often quoted B. Franklin quote. cut down. Point made moot, no need to be responded too.

Quote:

Obama has committed aggressive invasions of other soverign nations

This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.[citation needed]

Hardly "invasions" more like unmanned incursions. Afghanistan, Iraq can be ticked off that list since USA was already there. Pakistan had Al Qaeda militants crossing the border, spilling the violence. 3 countries? One of them is now relatively pro America (libya). Yemen was always a troubled nation. Somalia took US citizens hostage and had her citizens get sniped by SEALs I believe.

Iraq point made moot, no need for response.

Again, not necessarily unconstitutional as no supreme court justice has weighed in. Also, did Obama actually declare war? Because 2 drone strikes a war does not make. It isnt even just phrasing to combat zones, war would be iraq/afghanistan where personnel are deployed and significant resources invested not to mention both countries declaring war on each other. Did Libya declare war on USA? Yemen? Somalia? Or did an extremist cell get hit by a drone strike?

Quote:

Obama violated the Constitution with his actions in Libya, and it most certainly is not the only example, if we include the 'dream act incident' and NDAA.

So, no he didnt violate constitution otherwise supreme court would be having their say. Elaborate on dream act and NDAA and how they violate the constitution rather than the fact you may/may not like them.

Quote:

What you need to realize is that almost ALL of these wallstreet companies... owned by the same families

Waiting on specifics here.

As I mentioned earlier, Libya wasnt really a declaration of war. Considering the near unanimous support from other countries in the region, in the UN, dropping a couple advisors in and a few drone strikes is hardly war for a country like USA. Refer to point above.

Quote:

...for you to start getting condescending

I was condescending because a.) You had no idea how the debt ceiling works. Its more akin to USA actually paying for its debts otherwise the creditors ruin USA's rating. You pay for your debts, or people who credit you cant trust that you will. b.) You did rely completely on fear and conjecture. You went off topic for the simple fact of getting fear points by typing.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure he'd name them "suggestions" even if a gun was placed to our head during the process.

Despite its low relevance to the point at hand.

Healthcare, believe or not, is a good thing, if you fail to point out its horribleness, point is mine. Your point is moot. Also, Obama hasn't raised taxes in the first 4 years, Romney slipped up and pointed it out by accident. Mandate will only affect those who are uninsured, ensuring they dont get to leech healthcare without paying for it, otherwise it is a fiscal solution to a bloated and inefficient healthcare system.

Quote:

Plus if the argument is that Obama is conservative....how "traditional" is "suspending habeas Corpus??"

1. It isnt really a suspension of habeas corpus, if you look at the actual writing, it exlcudes US citizens, but is vague enough to be interpreted as not excluding US citizens.2. Last President to suspend Habeas Corpus was Dubya in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention, ... _Terrorism and 2006 had a similiar update ensuring gitmo prisoners remain prisoners.3. Until the NDAA is used on a citizen, I doubt it can be used on a citizen due to the media backlash, the furor, the legalese experts scrambling, ACLU priming their biggest guns in law, etc.You forget thatAuthorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists signed in 2001 allows for suspension of habeas corpus already, the NDAA bill merely provided specifics. Again, Supreme Court is there. Feel free to file or start up a movement to file motions that declare it unconstitutional. I know plenty of people want to, but until it is declared such... your argument is moot.

Quote:

This man should be arrested....

What is freedom?

Arresting someone because you dont agree with them.

Your original list can now be boiled down to 3-4 contentious points, hardly worst president material, especially considering his solid lead over mitt romney (polling higher now than in 2008)

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum